[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <505976B5.6090801@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:39:33 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] Add a __GFP_KMEMCG flag
On 09/18/2012 07:06 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
>> @@ -35,6 +35,11 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
>> #else
>> #define ___GFP_NOTRACK 0
>> #endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0x400000u
>> +#else
>> +#define ___GFP_KMEMCG 0
>> +#endif
>
> Could you leave __GFP_MEMCG a simple definition and then define GFP_MEMCG
> to be zer0 if !MEMCG_KMEM? I think that would be cleaner and the
> __GFP_KMEMCHECK another case that would be good to fix up.
>
>
>
I can, but what does this buy us?
Also, in any case, this can be done incrementally, and for the other
flag as well, as you describe.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists